With the Leveson report coming out tomorrow and Mr Cameron et al leafing through their copies today, I was wondered what people would like to see as the outcome.Obviously there are a few journalists who frequent this board and I'd be particularly interested in what they think.

In some instances the press have been terrible (I'm thinking things like phone hacking for example... which I assume wasn't practised by most journalists but has cast a shadow over all), but a free press is very important to democracy. Obviously there has to be a balance between public interest and invasion of privacy but should the press be left to manage themselves with a binding code of conduct as some MP's seem to be suggesting this morning (isn't that what we have now though?) or should this be backed up with legislation.

Personally I'm not sure where or how I would like that line drawn though I feel the press have failed at self regulation. I would like to see something like Canada's law where broadcast news can't knowing broadcast a lie, which has effectively kept Fox news out of Canada, though that is obviously aimed at broadcast not print media. It also wouldn't fix this problem with what we class as public interest.

1. There's probably not an adult in Britain that hasn't done something that, if they had been famous, would have made the front page of a national newspaper.

2. We should make the press set up a joint legal fund (policed and controlled by the civil service) that complainants about press abuse can use to fund their court cases against particular newspapers.

3. It is interesting that the UK government has charged Brooks, Coulson etc individually, rather than charge News International. This will give most Fleet Street editors a squeaky bum and discourage continued press malpractice.

4. I for one am eternally grateful to the Daily Telegraph for exposing MP's own hypocrisy, duplicity and fraud. I would prefer to have no press regulation if its imposition would deny any future opportunity to expose such governmental abuse.

4. I for one am eternally grateful to the Daily Telegraph for exposing MP's own hypocrisy, duplicity and fraud. I would prefer to have no press regulation if its imposition would deny any future opportunity to expose such governmental abuse.

Nobody is proposing any regulation that would prevent investigative journalism.

Nobody giving evidence to Leveson suggested anything that would prevent investigative journalism. It's highly unlikely he will recommend anything that will 'shackle' the press's ability to investigate anything.

Nobody giving evidence to Leveson suggested anything that would prevent investigative journalism. It's highly unlikely he will recommend anything that will 'shackle' the press's ability to investigate anything.

It was mentioned this morning on Breakfast TV that apologies for false accusations are printed in minute detail inside the newspaper responsible, whereas the original story was headline grabbing. It was said the apology should be more prominent and not tucked away.

It was mentioned this morning on Breakfast TV that apologies for false accusations are printed in minute detail inside the newspaper responsible, whereas the original story was headline grabbing. It was said the apology should be more prominent and not tucked away.

I'd like it to be a rule that a retraction must be printed on the same page number and take up the same space as the disproven allegation.

Between the optimist & the pessimist
The difference is quite droll:
The optimist sees the doughnut,
The pessimist sees the hole.

Press freedom is important, yet, but there needs to be some sort of regulation that's independent of the press (and government in my opinion). The two central points are this:

1. The Press Complaints Commission as it stands is useless and governed by self-interest.

2. The press, and particularly Paul Dacre, should get nowhere near the new regulator.

Some kind of compromise that allows the status quo to continue will be found, though - too many vested interests. All the parties (bar, perhaps, the Lib Dems) have coised up to Murdoch etc at some point. Alex Salmond is still doing it.

The lobby group Media Standards Trust has just published the results of a YouGov poll it commissioned and surprise surprise, the results support the line that the MST takes. However, this conclusion seems to have escapes much attention: http://mediastandard...t-poll-results/ scroll down to summary of results.

"47% trust Lord Justice Leveson ‘A Great Deal’ (8%) or ‘A Fair Amount’ (39%) to make fair and effective recommendations on regulating the press, while 33% trust him ‘Not Very Much’ (29%) or ‘Not At All’ (6%) to do this. 21% don’t know."

Press freedom is important, yet, but there needs to be some sort of regulation that's independent of the press (and government in my opinion). The two central points are this:

1. The Press Complaints Commission as it stands is useless and governed by self-interest.

2. The press, and particularly Paul Dacre, should get nowhere near the new regulator.

Some kind of compromise that allows the status quo to continue will be found, though - too many vested interests. All the parties (bar, perhaps, the Lib Dems) have coised up to Murdoch etc at some point. Alex Salmond is still doing it.

1. Yes2. Yes, not Dacre, not Rustbridger, not anyone3. Must provide redress for the many "smaller" victims. Self publicists such as Grant etc are happy to engineer and capitalise on publicity when they want to, but the Dowlers etc need instant affordable and effective redress4. Keep the Media Standards Trust out of it ( and Common Purpose zealots, too)5. maybe hand it all over to us on the TRL forum, plain speaking, diverse opinions,no bullshitting (well...) people of action, that's us!